Open Letter to Those Opposing the Iraq War

TAHMED:

``I offer my condolences to people like you who think that being of the nonwhite race means that I must limit my freedom of thinking to certain politically correct views only ``

Very true. Everytime I say something that may have something in common with a white/ conservative agenda, I am asked to remember the civil rights movement.

I don`t understand this. Just because my country was occupied by a white race at one time, or because at one time American laws were discriminatory, I must, in all perpetuity have a victim mentality? That is ridiculous.

Race or religion may create a complex in certain people, but why should that be me? If Clarence Thomas chooses to think differently, how can he be anything but an Uncle Tom? Yet, if a white man happens to have an opinion that coincides with that of the ACLU, he is considered ``enlightened``.

A complete example of intellectual fascism indeed.

As I had done in my post #55, in an attempt to see the forest and not get lost in the trees, I have grouped posts into major themes as reflected in the posts (and some new themes have emerged as well). And Stuka #78, glad to see you here. Actually it is not really brickbats but some pretty interesting stuff that emerges when you step back and look at the forest, as you will see below:
So, a summary of various posts, and my two-cents worth, as grouped by themes. follows. NOTE tha this summary is incremental only, and the earlier discussion was summarized and my comments provided in my post #55.
1. The US has not shown a commitment to democracy, and as such why do we expect it in Iraq: Sadna #63 adds that realpolitik is here to stay. I agree. Kamala #67 says this is about oil, not democracy. My response is: If it was about oil only, then the US would probably simply make a deal with Saddam. Why go through all this cost in money and lives and political risks if it is nerely a question of replacing one dictator with another? Therefore, in case of Iraq, there does seem to be one of those times where we have a happy convergence of realpolitik and the cause of democracy. That is, it is in the US interest to TRY and introduce democracy in Iraq. And here the historical precedents noted in my article, namely Japan and Germany, are relevant I think. Whether this will work in Iraq (with a much smaller professional class than Japan and Germany) remains to be seen.

2. Increased internal security: No new posts.

3. The article overplays the role of US and UK in introducing democracy: No new posts.

4. Bad feelings about the Brits: Nasah adds a post concerning his hatred for the British and how he and his father defeated the British. Nasah to please name the battle in which the Brits finally accepted defeat and left India: was it the Battle of Yorktown perhaps?? or maybe the Battle of the Bickering Politicians Around the Round Table Conference in London?? Just kidding, nasah. I think you can forgive the Brits now, nasah: they did give the world the Beatles, Lady Di, and scientists who found some really cool stuff like the Book of Life, and Black Holes in space. Not to mention how they opened their doors to indians and pakis after they were kicked out of Africa in the 1980`s. Hope you feel better now.

And here are some new themes:

5. How does this war reconcile with national sovereignty: Dost Mittar had made this point earlier and I had overlooked it. Harish-hyd #62 says by this argument Pakistan would be also on the list. Ali87 #71 says, well so could India. Veeresh #61 wonders if this is about Iraq alone or something bigger, e.g. could Iran, Saudi etc. be next.
My two cents: If one believes in complete sovereignty of nations, then by that argument the US is OK is exercising its sovereign right to undertake military action if it believes this addresses some security threat. Of course no one will agree, and by the same token, no nation can also claim to have sovereign right to do what it pleases internally. My point is: we are going through a period of transition - globalization is eroding national sovereignty, just as industrialization eroded feudalistic ``sovereignty``. So, things are indeed a bit messy at this time.

6. Opposition to the war within the US: Sadna #63 says, in response to the premise in my article that if we can trust the US to come and live here, we should trust its government as well, draws a distinction between the federal (i.e. Bush) government and the local governments in the US. My response: A recent poll (Zogby International) found 70 percent of americans support this war, with many people saying that now that the President has decided they need to stand behind their troops. And I dont think the federal government is in any way seen as being removed from the ordinary american.

7. The Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth: Saminasha had raised the point earlier that what I had written may be true, but it is only part of the truth. I had agreed with her on that, and clearly the question of war deaths is an important aspect of the war that I did not discuss in the article. Ahmedzai #72 agrees on the premise of the article, but raises this human aspect of the war again. Septran #66 also says that the ``war has shattered our nerves``, and Kamala #67 also mentions the children being killed. This indeed is the real tragedy. However, I believe the US had to take a stand: we should not underestimate the impact of 9/11, and continuing fears of terrorism, on the US public. Others may disagree, this is not an easy call to make. Overall, I think Saminasha`s point is an excellent one: too often we see only PART of the truth, while others see other PARTS of the truth. I have no pretensions to my article being the WHOLE truth, but I do consider it to be an IMPORTANT PART of the truth. And one which the ``politically correct`` intellectuals tend to ignore.

I may have misinterpreted points made by some posters, and overlooked some additinal important points. That, as always, would be an honest mistake, not intentional. T

Thanks to all for writing.

Further to my post below, I would also like to thank hxn #60 for his appreciation ( I forgot to mention him).

I learned two new words today:

1. Peter Arnett - welcome to 1984 (of G. Orwell) eventually.
2. Broiler soldiers

The case against the war is based on the immediate consequences such as destruction of infrastructure and casualties. Everybody deplores loss of human lives. But the case for war is based on the past and future. Saddam must be punished for his pivotal role in two useless adventures namely against Iran and Kuwait. This is the first time Saddam is most likely to pay the price for his misadventures. Similarly the future of Iraqi people will be better without Saddam, no matter how ones look at it. Democracy or no democracy, US occupation or pullback but sanctions are likely to be lifted as well as humanitarian aid flowing in.

What happens to Iraqis is of prime importance. What happens to Muslims, neighboring authoritarian rulers, Iran or Syria is secondary. Iraqis should not pay the price for the safety of Islamic republic of Iran, Kingdon of Saudi Arabia or distatorship in Syria.

The war is illegitimate. Therefore, people of USA have the right to oppose it because on the average it will cost about 100 dollars per employees just to cover the first month of the war. Some believe rightly that 100 dollars could be better spent on neighborhood roads, school or some other social program. Those who are suporting have no influence because the decision to go to war was made without considering any support for the war. They are just going along with the decision of the government, mostly republicans who voted for Bush.

Most of the people around the world are against it for a variety of reasons, some on moral grounds, some religious and some on the basis of disagreeing to the philosophy of preemptive intervention. Eurpoeans are non-interventionists whereas Muslims` opposition is complex in which religion is the main culprit. They can`t see anything without filtering it through the cloudy lens of religion.

Moreover, USA has historically supported thugs in the Muslim countries and Muslims suspicion excluding religious ground is not without reason. It is a matter of track record. However, track record can not hold on the straight line with changing world, a new paradigm since the end of cold war. USA can not afford to alienate whole Muslim population any more than present level. This is a golden opportunity for making a difference for the good. USA has a lready contributed to the good of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo (prior to 9/11) and Afghanistan (post 9/11). Therefore US policy towards Muslims is not totally the result of 9/11. It had started changing near the end of Bush-41, continued during Clinton presidency and likely to continue in Bush-43 residency despite neoconservative agenda dominating in the current situation but it will come to pass.

The power of neoconservatives is likely to decline as a result of this war, no matter what the outcome. All this group including Cheney might not last (I believe Tom Ridge will replace Cheney on VP slot) during the second term Bush-43 presidency if he wins which I seriously doubt. I believe Kerry is going to be the next president.

If US continues supporting tinpot dictators in th Muslim countries and imposes another tinpot over Iraq, US power around the world will suffer tremendously. The Europeans, China and Russia would gain respect and trade from each other. USA can not afford it and would make sure to make a good example out of Iraq much more than any place else.

For Pakistanis, biggest danger are Pakistanis like Zia, Musharraf, military establishment, Mullah, Feudals, tribal leaders and Pirs and the problems of illiteracy, lower status for women and unfair treatment of minorities. The situation in Iraq comes very low in the order of priorities. This holds only for those whom Pakistan comes first. For those whom Islam cones first have reverse order of priorities with Muslims issues topping the list, particularly those of extra-subcontinental origin.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: Saminasha # 51

I think that soyasauce answered that question and there is not too much to add to it. All I can say, as a post-script, is that patriotism is being defined as a virtue of a minority in the United States. There has always been a tendency in the United States towards symbology of nationalism; the flag burning amendment being a notable case. Americans are increasingly equating patriotism with an evolving sense of its symbols - the flag, its institutions, the military, national pride and its version/vision of democracy.

This is a personal observation, and I could be wrong, but there seems to be some confusion in the United States on two accounts. One is that general acceptance of the American mass culture is seen by many in the United States as a vindication of their politics and secondly, that the United States is increasingly adopting a political pater familias attitude. For example, both India and the United States are a democracy. India in the developing world, while the United States is in the developed world, but to suggest that American democracy is better than the Indian democracy misses point. Indian democracy is suited to the sovereign interests of India and it is no less any democratic than the American one, but for the United States to presume that it knows what is best for India, in a democratic sense, is what is causing political resentment against it. In a simialar sense, everyone in Pakistan would like a democratic government, but no one in Pakistan would like a democractic government that is based on the Pakistani army`s interpretation of democracy.

Dissent in the United States has to pre-suppose this hypothesis and that is, that it does offer an alternative view point and not necessarily an opposition to the majority/minority opinion. Given the prevailing political climate in the United States, there is no tolerance for dissent, because the United States, after Nine-Eleven, is feeling itself politically insecure. The United States is politically insecure, because it has not been able to reason the actions against it, but has simply rationalized a one dimensional cause and effect. The simple reason being that the United States has never answered the basic question of how to balance its power with its responsibility in the world. Secondly, the United States refuses to accept the fact that world will always respect the United States for its power, but it will never love it for its arrogance and indifference in pursuit of that power.

Dissent will only flourish in the United States if it feels secure politically and in the present situation, the United States views dissent within a patriotic prism. Hence to question its policies is to question its patriotism and since patriotism is defined as a monopoly of a political minority in the United States, its questioning is considered as persona non grata.

To over come this, the debate has to be redefined and the issues have to be de-personalized and fallibility of past acts, deeds, intentions and actions acknowledged.

Best wishes, as always

Ciao

TAhmed: Good one. Thanks for the favor. Now you will get brickbats and I will be forgotten. I agree with some aspects ie. do not expect an immediate transition to democracy but certainly expect a more benign government leading to democracy. Akin to Japan.


The one aspect is that ultimately democracy prevails if the elite have a healthy respect for it. That is why, despite Anglo Saxon tradition of rule of law (agree with you on its effect) democracy flourished in India as compared to Pakistan.

Ignore idiots like Bat who think that the US is not a democracy because of the voting machine screw up.

#63 Sadhana,
[You donot trust your life and the future of your children to the same institutional apparatus that decides that US must go to war...etc]

Beautifully put! There are indeed 2 systems running in parallel. One of them, a real democratic system where the citizens can influence decision making, the city & county governments have been given the short shrift. Local governments are hurting, schools are closing, health care support is being taken away from the people on the bottom rung because revenues are so thing. The other government, the one in DC is gorging itself, at the expense of local governments, spiking up military spending & looking for new adventures. If it weren`t for the local governments, american would have undergone many more revolutions by now. It is my immediate community to which i have a sense of belonging not to some distant power-grabbers in a faraway land, which is what DC seems.

tahmed says if it weren`t for the Brits we`d still be kowtowing to some mughal king. This premise itself is debatable since it assumes that societies do not change in the absence of colonialism, but even if you accept that as true one wonders what`s so great about kowtowing to an army and a general instead.

#51 saminashah
Samina, this kind of criticism can indeed come from those who are anti-american no matter what. But of course not everyone who criticises is anti-american. Some of us have the best interests of america and the world in mind. Besides, there is a lot of skullduggery going on right now trying to paint every critic of bush as anti-american. Hard to tell apart patriotism and the mafia code of right-or-wrong-we-have-got-to-stick-together.

``And by the same token, would you support an American invasion of Pakistan to restore true democracy?``(harish-hyd)

the Devil`s Advocate Tauheed Ahmed -- answer this simple and direct question --

say yes, yes, yes --

for the ``true`` democracy by General Musharraf of course YES -- Pakistan is an already Invaded & Occupied country.

A mighty superpower blinded by its arrogance and selfishness, picks on an impoverished country, where in the post-Gulf War I, a million children under the age of 5 have died of malnutrition.
These deaths have been caused not by Saddam Hussein and his dictatorship; they are the result of the cruel sanctions imposed on Iraq by the UN under pressure from the US after Gulf War I.
This is the same superpower that has no qualms whatsoever about hobnobbing with other corrupt regimes in the Mid East. A superpower whose president decided that the regime in Iraq was more dangerous than the one in North Korea.
What a shame.

#62 by harish_hyd on March 30, 2003 10:13pm PT

Lets imagine another scenario.

If any time Americans feel the need to interfere in India they only need a few years time for propganda. In the meanwhile The could easily create anarchy using the current fans of US war (ie Sangh parivar) leading to frequent dissolutions of parliment and leading to some form of presidents rule or some hot head party leader imposing emergency or such like situation.

A couple of years of sustained funding and arming of muslim extremists could complete the picutre.

A Nation of many Nationalites where the majority authorian rule brutally supresses minorites is the propaganda. With 60000 mainly muslims already killed (remember how similar it sounds to the kurdish issue, People rebel because of lack of representation or not able to have their way, Seperateism starts, govt clamps down, Govt views rebellion as fitting heavy response thus killings from both sides) Nobody will count in the western media who started the rebellion and why just that people are being deined rights and thus 60000 people killed in the struggle. In the 6-7 years of propaganda build up many more will be killed. Other insurgences else where in the country will flare up with renewed suppourt.

As it is the US as well as most western countries hold India as a Unnatural state. I have read this in many books and analysis even as late as last year by key figures in the administration. This view is furthered with the history of India being a bunch of seperate nations each with its very distinct language, culture,food etc.

Many groups in US who will be itching to have a bigger role financialy and politicaly back home will further the US cause.

A few incidents like develpment of more missiles or an reaction to provocatioon by Pakistan or the any of the insurginecies will lead to US resolutions and some loose talk by some hot head in RSS of using Nuclear weapons in kashmir or pakistan will bring about talk of Resloving the Indian Issue.

So we will see the bombs being released over India. and the world will be talking of our liberation from anarchy or suppression or both and of course from the grinding poverty what with our GDP being lower than that of palestines and a bunch of other countires.

What a blessing it is not to have Oil. But dont doubt that this could not happen. With our political class what it is and our administration easily sold to the highest bidder and with various deep schisims among differnt areas of the country dont even think it is not possible. It is very much possible only we dont have the ingredient which attracts attention.

tahmed32:

Nice rebellious article.

I always like to question my preconceived notions and this was one good opportunity.

I agree with you whole-heartedly that (1) the world needs democracy and (2) the world needs to get rid of Saddam and that both the objectives be achieved through the USA, except that there is got to be better way than kill and mahem millions.

Tauheed

You have done a great service by putting up a different point of view.

It has let so many people to vent out their inner bottled up feelings.

This War has achieved an impossible feat - it has united the humanity of all shades and hues and of all religions and cultues on a single platform - the basic human values.

A tale of two reports compare the reports in CNN Vs those in British media.
__________________________

First British fallen return home
Saturday, March 29, 2003 Posted: 9:48 AM EST (1448 GMT)



A coffin draped in the British flag is carried from a military cargo plane at Brize Norton Royal Air Force Base.



BRIZE NORTON, England (CNN) -- The bodies of ten British military service members killed in a ``friendly fire`` incident and accident in the Persian Gulf region returned to British soil Saturday, in a solemn ceremony at a Royal Air Force Base in Gloucestershire.

To the strains of Nimrod from the ``Enigma`` variations by Edward Elgar, each of the coffins -- draped in the Union Jack flag -- were carried off the C17 cargo aircraft at RAF Brize Norton by military pallbearers.

They were the first British war casualties from the war in Iraq to return to the United Kingdom.

Two of the dead were British Royal Air Force pilots, killed March 23 when their British Tornado GR4 aircraft was mistakenly shot down by a U.S. Patriot missile, the ministry said.

The remaining eight were British Royal Marines, killed March 20 in a CH-46E helicopter crash in Kuwait.

The bodies will remain at a temporary mortuary at the Royal Air Force base, until they undergo a post-mortem exam.

They will be released to the families for private burial, according to the Ministry of Defense.

-- CNN`s Phil Turner and Richard Griffiths contributed to this report

==============================

This is from BBC



++++++++++++

Victims describe `friendly fire` terror

By Patrick Barkham
On the RFA Argus in the Gulf


Three wounded UK soldiers have described how they survived an attack by a US A-10 Thunderbolt anti-tank aircraft that killed one of their troop and destroyed two armoured vehicles.
One of the survivors criticised the US pilot for showing ``no regard for human life`` and accused him of being ``a cowboy`` who had ``gone out on a jolly``.


The US A-10 aircraft circled and came around for a second attack
Another survivor said he stumbled out of the burning wreckage of his light tank and waved frantically to the American pilot to try to halt his second attack.

The so-called friendly fire incident, 40 kilometres (24.8 miles) north of Basra, left one soldier missing, presumed dead, and another in intensive care on RFA Argus, the UK forces` hospital ship in the Gulf.

Another soldier who had been in one of the two destroyed Scimitar light reconnaissance tanks, manned by the Household Cavalry, escaped without injury.

Nursing shrapnel wounds and burns, the three injured soldiers, Lieutenant Alex MacEwen, 25, Lance Corporal of Horse Steven Gerrard, 33, and Trooper Chris Finney, 18, spoke of their bewilderment and anger.

They said the US pilot apparently failed to recognise that their tanks were a British make, with special coalition identification aids and even a large Union flag on another machine in the five-vehicle convoy.

Advanced technology

Lance Corporal Gerrard said: ``All this kit has been provided by the Americans. They`ve said if you put this kit on you won`t get shot.

``We can identify a friendly vehicle from 1,500 metres [4,921 ft].

``You`ve got an A-10 with advanced technology and he can`t use a thermal sight to identify whether a tank is a friend or foe. It`s ridiculous.

I felt I was going to burn to death. I just shouted `reverse, reverse, reverse`

Lance Corporal of Horse Steven Gerrard
``Combat is what I`ve been trained for. I can command my vehicle. I can keep it from being attacked.

``What I have not been trained to do is look over my shoulder to see whether an American is shooting at me.``

The two Scimitars, followed by two armoured engineers` vehicles and another Scimitar light tank, set out on a ``recce`` of a road north west of Ad Dayr, north of Basra in southern Iraq, on Friday.

After coming under fire from Iraqi artillery, they were instructed to investigate a shanty town.

Troop leader Lieutenant MacEwen, 25, with special plastic bags now tied around his hands to treat his burns, described how the convoy tensed as villagers waving white flags approached from behind a large bank on the marshland by the Shatt al-Arab river.

``You could see the white flags above the bank but you didn`t know whether they had any intention of surrendering or ambushing us,`` he said.

White light

Lance Corporal Gerrard said he suddenly heard the distinctive, relentless roar of an A-10`s anti-tank gunfire.

``I will never forget that noise as long as I live. It is a noise I never want to hear again,`` he said.




Widow`s emotional tribute
``There was no gap between the bullets. I heard it and I froze. The next thing I knew the turret was erupting with white light everywhere, heat and smoke.

``I felt I was going to burn to death. I just shouted `reverse, reverse, reverse`.

``My gunner was screaming `get out, get out`. How I got out of that hole I don`t know. Then I saw the A-10 coming again and I just ran.``

Lying on his hospital bed, he said the A-10 circled and made a return attack run.

``On the back of one of the engineers` vehicles there was a Union Jack,`` he said.

``For him to fire his weapons I believe he had to look through his magnified optics. How he could not see that Union Jack I don`t know.``

Tempting fate

The front two Scimitars, packed with hundreds of rounds of ammunition, grenades, rifle rounds and flammable diesel fuel tanks, exploded into flames.

One of the soldiers` colleagues, Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull, did not escape the explosion.


The British Scimitars have distinctive markings
Lance Corporal Gerrard also criticised the pilot for shooting when there were civilians so close to the tanks.

``There was a boy of about 12-years-old. He was no more than 20 metres [65.6 ft] away when the Yank opened up. There were all these civilians around.

``He [the pilot] had absolutely no regard for human life. I believe he was a cowboy. He`d just gone out on a jolly.``

He added: ``I`m curious about what`s going to happen to the pilot.

``He`s killed one of my friends and he`s killed him on the second run.``

Trooper Finney, who was hit in the leg when the A-10 made its second attack, said all the British soldiers and their families joked about ``friendly fire``.

He said: ``I got a letter off my dad the day before the attack and it said `Be careful, come home soon and watch out for those damn Yanks`.

``Looks like he tempted fate a bit there.``


This is pooled copy from Patrick Barkham of the Times on RFA Argus in the Gulf


_________________-

the Brithsh solider says ``He [the pilot] had absolutely no regard for human life. I believe he was a cowboy. He`d just gone out on a jolly.``
but you are more loyal than that thamed!

Not only the US media suppress these facts but also the Americans act just as the world describes them.